San Francisco, CA Oral argument was presented today before Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Donhal in the matter of Bolick, et al v. Roberts, et al. This is the first civil rights test case to be filed by both wineries and consumers challenging state prohibitions against private citizens receiving wine direct from out-of-state purveyors. The Coalition for Free Trade (CFT) and the plaintiffs believe that bans on direct shipments of wine violate the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The case was filed on November 15, 1999 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by attorneys Matthew Hale of Hale and Associates and Professor Dan Ortiz of the University of Virginia School of Law on behalf of Virginia wine consumers Robin Heatwole and Clint Bolick and out-of-state wineries Hood River Vineyards of Hood River, Oregon, Dry Comal Creek Vineyards of New Braunfels, Texas and Miura Vineyards of Calistoga, California.

Prior to the proceedings, the entire record of the case was placed upon the judgeâ€™s bench. As Judge Donhal entered the room and sat down, the courtroom burst out in laughter: under the mountain of over 15,000 pages of official documents, the attorneys could barely see the top of Judge Donhalâ€™s head. A great sense of humor did not
detract from the judge acknowledging the importance of this case to the American wine industry.

â€œJudge Donhal took everything under submission. It was clear that he had jumped into the case, and understood the nature of the issue,â€ said Professor Ortiz.

â€œThis is by far the most heavily litigated direct shipping case to date. No legal issue or procedural matter went uncontested. This case was fought tooth and nail by both sides,â€ said Bill Kinzler, CFTâ€™s general counsel.

The stateâ€™s attorney attempted to characterize the plaintiffs as irresponsible and callous towards underage drinking
issues. Professor Ortiz immediately objected and emphasized that while underage drinking is a very serious social problem, the state did not prove any correlation between out-of-state direct marketing and underage drinking.

Interestingly, the intervening wholesalersâ€™ attorney argued most of the 21st amendment and the dormant commerce clause issues while the state allotted most of its time to the facts of the case.

â€œThe wholesalers raised not only the Twenty-First Amendment, but also, the traditional â€˜three-tier systemâ€™ as a
defense in their arguments. Incidentally, in over half a century of Virginiaâ€™s official legislative history that surfaced during discovery, there was a notable lack of reference to the phrase â€˜three-tier systemâ€™,â€ said CFTâ€™s Executive Director, Vivienne Nishimura.

CFT supported the plaintiffs by filing its own amicus brief that detailed the history of the Twenty-First Amendment and Webb-Kenyon Act. In the amicus brief, CFT stated, "The purpose of the Webb-Kenyon Act and the Twenty-first Amendment, its constitutional successor, was not to allow the States to foster a three-tier system, protect alcoholic beverage wholesalers, or to engage in any other exercises of its police powers than to enact and enforce
prohibitionary alcoholic beverage laws. Rather, their respective legislative histories reveal that their animating intent
was to allow â€œdryâ€ states to remain â€œdryâ€ by creating a means by which States that wanted to maintain prohibition (either on a state-wide or local option basis) could close their borders to all alcoholic beverages without running afoul of the negative Commerce Clause."

â€œWe think this case is going to blow some of the cobwebs off of the 21st Amendment and reveal its limitations as a source of protectionist legislation,â€ added Kinzler.

A ruling is expected sometime in the spring.

The Coalition for Free Trade is the American wine industryâ€™s legal solution to laws prohibiting consumer choice and fair trade. As such, CFT will continue to protect the interests of the wine industry to engage in direct commerce to consumers by participating as an active amicus in ongoing direct shipping court challenges.